User talk:Phlsph7/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Preoccupied now. Will reply later. Brief comment: for main ideas, it is better to have several concordant authoritative sources; I think such concordance is a good component of reliable sourcing. I think that internet references, such as The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, are mostly poor things to cite as 'reliable sources'. Paper-and-ink printed books that can be found in libraries are much preferable.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on the issue of having several concordant authoritative sources for main ideas. I'll keep it in mind for future contributions. But I don't agree on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or similar sources (like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). They have a good reputation as far as I'm aware of and I've personally found them useful and no less reliable than their printed alternatives. And of course they have the additional advantage for the average reader that they only need to follow a link to check them out.Phlsph7 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Still preoccupied, but can chat briefly. Thank you for your comment. To my mind, the internet sources are slippery. I don't see the authoritative printed sources simply as alternatives. How does one check the internet sources? What level of authority do they attain? How easy it is for them to change after they have been initially cited?Chjoaygame (talk) 06:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the time. These are good questions. One source of epistemic authority is the author. What experts say is more likely to be true than what non-experts say. SEP & IEP have strict criteria for who can publish there, I guess stricter requirements than regular journals. Another source of authority comes from the publisher, e.g. from the people on the editorial board. Another source of authority comes from the publishing process, especially the peer-reviewing part. One indication of authority comes from whether many people in the field consider the publisher reliable. I'm not an expert on these issues but from what I can tell SEP & IEP don't do too bad on them.

You are right about the changing-part. There are some ways to mitigate it like the quarterly permanent editions of SEP in their archive or the Wayback Machine by the Internet Archive.

The hurdle for publishing online is much lower than for publishing in print. And of course this affects the quality of what is published. So here I agree with you that, generally speaking, printed publications are more reliable. But it doesn't apply to all cases.Phlsph7 (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and helpful reply. Though I have waved a flag, if I may be so bold, it seems to me that you are a relatively reliable and trustworthy Wikipedia editor, and I feel inclined to respect your judgement on this.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

(At the risk of being or seeming too opinionated, I would like to say that I have huge respect for the cosmology/ontology of Alfred North Whitehead, as set out in his Process and Reality.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

Ah, that's interesting. I picked the book up some time back. I got the impression that he has a quite systematic view but I didn't get deeper into it. What is it in his ontology that you find interesting? I'm currently reading some papers on truth-making. I saw an article or two here that might profit form truth-making-section.Phlsph7 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

An ontology isn't about some unique ultimate truth. It's about how to articulate our thoughts about some world in a convenient way. Whitehead can be summarised as saying that we think of things in the ordinary world as real when they exemplify causality. Perhaps that's a misleading summary, but perhaps it might help. I have seen people seem to get Whitehead all jumbled. If you are interested in truth, may I suggest Jaakko Hintikka? Perhaps try The Principles of Mathematics Revisited.Chjoaygame (talk) 11:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The blurb of the book sounds interesting. I'll see if I can get my hands on a review.Phlsph7 (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

We are getting chatty. It occurs to me also that Hintikka has contributed to ontology. Ontology is about the basic things of some world or universe of discourse. Hintikka was an important source of modal logic, which specifies possible worlds.

I failed to find a computer file of Hintikka's Knowledge and Belief (1962), so that I needed to buy a paper-and-ink printed copy. I hasten to add that such a need is unusual. One can very often find computer files of printed books.

Rod Girle's Possible Worlds is on Amazon Kindle, but no free sample. It cites seven works of Hintikka.

On just now checking Amazon Kindle, I find I can download for free a sample of some score of pages of The Principles of Mathematics Revisited.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a review, but I think it'll have to wait until after my truth-maker reading-list.

As for your comments on ontology before, they sound to me a little bit like Strawson's idea of descriptive metaphysics, i.e. that metaphysics is about describing our conceptual scheme. I haven't fully made up my mind on this issue, but I'm more inclined to a realist position: that there are actual "ontological facts" out there and that they determine whether a given ontological theory is right or wrong.Phlsph7 (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right that the ordinary world consists of actual facts, which are out there, and which constrain the rightness or wrongness of an ontological theory, and which define ordinary reality. No doubt there. Ordinarily, we may leave the qualifier 'ordinary' tacit, but here we may say it, for definiteness.

But there are worlds other than the ordinary world. James Bond lives in one of them, perhaps even, over the decades, in several of them. The integers exist in another world, even in several other worlds. But, in a useful sense, such other worlds are not that of the ordinary reality of the ordinary world. They are fictional, mathematical,..., whatever, worlds. They may even have some real aspects, though not fully defining ordinary reality.

Each of these worlds has its ontology. Indeed, a world may easily have several ontologies, some better than others, for some purposes. Whitehead says "There remains the final reflection, how shallow, puny, and imperfect are efforts to sound the depths in the nature of things. In philosophical discussion, the merest hint of dogmatic certainty as to finality of statement is an exhibition of folly."

Your use of the word 'actual' is key. A basic concept in Whitehead's scheme is that of an 'actual entity'. Things are real insofar as they are founded in actual entities. Does this make sense?Chjoaygame (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I can follow you to some extend. Let's say we take ontology to be about what ontological commitments a given theory or fiction has. Then we can say if James Bond's world were actual, the villain Auric Goldfinger would exist. Or if Hinduism were true then so & so many gods would exist. Different ontological theories of the same theory/fiction may disagree on the ontological commitments of this theory/fiction. And I take it that what you/Whitehead are saying is that there is no matter of fact as to which of these different ontological theories is true, that it is more a matter of convenience how we want to describe them. Is that roughly how you would characterize it? How does the idea of "actual entities" fit into this picture?

I can follow you to some extend. ok

Let's say we take ontology to be about what ontological commitments a given theory or fiction has. ok

Then we can say if James Bond's world were actual, the villain Auric Goldfinger would exist. The way I use the word 'actual' in this context leads me to say that James Bond's world is not actual, and contains no actual entities; this follows from its being fictional. I don't have a problem with saying that in James Bond's world, Goldfinger exists.

Or if Hinduism were true then so & so many gods would exist. For me, the question of the truth of Hinduism is close to meaningless or uninteresting. I don't see ontology as being very relevant to Hinduism. I guess that one could construct an ontology of Hinduism, with a taxonomy of objects such as gods and demons.

Different ontological theories of the same theory/fiction may disagree on the ontological commitments of this theory/fiction. Yes, different ontologies for a given world or universe of discourse differ.

And I take it that what you/Whitehead are saying is that there is no matter of fact as to which of these different ontological theories is true, that it is more a matter of convenience how we want to describe them. Is that roughly how you would characterize it? Yes. Aristotle took substances as his ontologically fundamental objects; only one fundamental category. That did quite well for him, but it had faults that gradually emerged in discussion; for example, it gives an imperfect account of causality. Descartes proposed two fundamentally different categories of basic ontological objects. I don't know how detailed was his ontology within those two categories. Leibniz proposed his monads as fundamental objects; only one fundamental category. That ontology had some logical merit, and was perhaps in some respects an advance on Aristotle's substances, but it didn't have much practical use, because it didn't give a systematically useful account of causality. Whitehead proposes a new kind of fundamental object that he calls an actual entity; only one fundamental category, that fully and usefully respects causality. This ontology is primarily only about the actual real world; it is not primarily about mathematical objects, nor primarily about fictive objects, nor primarily about other possible worlds or universes of discourse. Whitehead's other fundamental objects, which he calls 'abstractions', derive whatever they have of reality from their relations to the actual entities. An example of an abstraction is a number, say 'two'. Whitehead assumes that his ontology will be superseded by an endless procession of better ones that he hasn't thought of.

How does the idea of "actual entities" fit into this picture? Whitehead's actual entities are precisely processes in the ordinary world. Each process is caused by other processes, and in turn it causes yet other processes. A prime characteristic of a process is where and when it takes place, relative to other processes.Chjoaygame (talk) 09:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response. I'm not sure about the ontology of things inside fictions. My realist intuition about ontology concerns more the ontology of the actual world. So for me the question of whether to adopt Aristotle's or Leibniz's or Whitehead's ontology would be primarily about which one is true. This of course is often more difficult to figure out than in the case of a disagreement between empirical theories since rational intuition may be less reliable than sensory observation.

But I think I like Whitehead's dedication to actuality. There is a view called "actualism" in contemporary metaphysics. It's basic idea is that existence/reality/being is primarily actual. We can still talk about merely possible things, like possible objects or possible worlds. But their existence is non-fundamental: It's grounded somewhere in something actual. It's sounds to me like we might list Whitehead among the actualists.Phlsph7 (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

By mentioning Whitehead, I led us off the point of my initial comment, which was about your added section. It's not just the paper-and-ink printedness of books that is ingredient in their status as reliable sources. There are other factors.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

For me, an ontology is not true-or-false. Rather, it makes sense, or it doesn't make sense, or is useful or not, for my purpose. I may use an ontology to help me examine substantial questions of truth.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that ontology is a science in the widest sense? Because if it's not about truth, it might be better to categorize it as something like an art or a technology. For example we might provisionally say that science aims at producing true sentences while technology aims at producing useful things.

Which other factors did you have in mind in favor of printed media?Phlsph7 (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you think that ontology is a science in the widest sense? I am not sure exactly what is a science. I am not sure that science has to be solely about truth. I value truth, but I think it doesn't exhaust all that we need. I am not in touch will all the latest, but perhaps I may refer to the mediaeval schoolwork. I think ontology may be partly trivial, that is to say, concerned with grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Or perhaps it belongs to philosophy. I don't know how philosophy is classified. It seems it isn't in the quadrivium. I guess it is postgraduate, a topic in which one may get a doctorate. I think the study of ontology is a rational activity, but I am not sure how to proceed from there.

Because if it's not about truth, it might be better to categorize it as something like an art or a technology. For example we might provisionally say that science aims at producing true sentences while technology aims at producing useful things. I am not very deeply into such a classification scheme.

I have to go now. More later.Chjoaygame (talk) 04:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, back here. If pushed for a choice amongst the three that you offer, I would say that philosophy, with its ingredient ontology, is an art.

Which other factors did you have in mind in favor of printed media? Perhaps I am mistaken, but I am inclined to think that printed textbooks and monographs are mostly subject to more sustained processes for assessing their reliability as Wikipedia sources.Chjoaygame (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think you are right to say that science is about more than just truth. For example a lucky guess might be true, but we wouldn't call it scientific. Another important ingredient, I think, is providing justification for the claims. In the empirical sciences this happens through the scientific method which involves sensory observations that in principle every "normal" observer would make when put in the right situation. But this doesn't work for formal sciences like mathematics. And it seems to me that this also doesn't get you very far in philosophy. One way to apply this idea from the empirical sciences is to extend the scientific method by allowing non-sensory evidence, e.g. from what we might call "rational intuition". In this interpretation philosophy and, by extension, ontology are sciences in a wider sense: they aim at truth, and they try to get there by providing evidence and arguments based on this evidence. It's just that they rely on evidence that isn't accepted (but often presupposed) by the empirical sciences. Ideally this evidence is also such that every "normal" rational being would accept it so that there is a general scientific consensus at least on the foundations. This is the part where philosophy is still lacking behind compared to other sciences.

At least that's the view that I find most attractive. But of course it doesn't work if you remove truth from the equation.

I think basically we are in agreement that, for most part, printed publications are more reliable because more effort goes into ensuring the quality and reliability of their contents.Phlsph7 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Need to remember Einstein's correct dictum that in physics (as in other empirical sciences), it is the theory that decides what can be observed. Abduction, the making of lucky guesses, perhaps, as you say, including "rational intuition", is an important creative contributor to science.

I am not keen on the proposition that philosophical questions can be decided by evidence, unless one sees valid pure reason as 'evidence', a view that I think strains language. Philosophy aims at things well outside the scope of truth. It aims to make sense of things. Truth is ingredient in that, but it has other ingredients. I think you would be shocked if you were to appreciate the depth of philosophical incompetence and nonsense that is to be found in physics. I think that much that passes for "general scientific consensus" is nonsense. The "normal" rational being is a rarity.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we can agree that, among other things, philosophers argue. Arguments, whether deductive or defeasible ones, depend on premises. A valid argument only supports its conclusion if its premises are true. So the question is where these premises come from. In some cases they come from other arguments, but in other cases they come directly from experiences, for example from perceptions/observations. Rational intuition, as I see it, can provide premises (or maybe better: provide evidence/justification for premises) in a way similar to perception. So, in this sense, intuition is not an argument like abduction. Sometimes when considering a proposition we get the impression that this proposition is true. In some cases this may be based on previous experiences but in other cases it isn't. These cases where it isn't (or at least a subset of them) are rational intuitions. Examples might be: "2 + 2 = 4" in mathematics, "negative entities (like holes, cracks or shadows) depend on positive entities" in ontology, "it's morally wrong to torture innocent people for fun" in ethics. These intuitions provide justification but are fallible.

It might be helpful to unpack the notion of "making sense". One way to make sense of things is to explain them. One way science does this is by observing regularities (e.g. objects fall when we drop them) and positing laws/force (gravitation) to explain the observation. Is that the notion of sense-making you have in mind?Phlsph7 (talk) 04:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think we can agree that, among other things, philosophers argue. Arguments, whether deductive or defeasible ones, depend on premises. A valid argument only supports its conclusion if its premises are true. So the question is where these premises come from. In some cases they come from other arguments ok

but in other cases they come directly from experiences, for example from perceptions/observations. I think that every proposition has important ingredients that do not come directly from sensation. (Not sure exactly what you mean by 'directly from experience'; people vary in their ideas on that.) Need to remember Einstein's correct dictum that in physics (as in other empirical sciences), it is the theory that decides what can be observed.

Rational intuition, as I see it, can provide premises (or maybe better: provide evidence/justification for premises) in a way similar to perception. So, in this sense, intuition is not an argument like abduction. I don't see abduction per se as an argument. I see it as an example of rational intuition, if you like.

Sometimes when considering a proposition we get the impression that this proposition is true. In some cases this may be based on previous experiences but in other cases it isn't. These cases where it isn't (or at least a subset of them) are rational intuitions. Examples might be: "2 + 2 = 4" in mathematics, "negative entities (like holes, cracks or shadows) depend on positive entities" in ontology, "it's morally wrong to torture innocent people for fun" in ethics. These intuitions provide justification but are fallible. A fallible justification only just scrapes in as a justification.

It might be helpful to unpack the notion of "making sense". One way to make sense of things is to explain them. One way science does this is by observing regularities (e.g. objects fall when we drop them) and positing laws/force (gravitation) to explain the observation. Is that the notion of sense-making you have in mind? I have in mind a more primitive kind of sense. Yes, explanations contribute much to sense making, but plenty of things make sense that, to us, are apparently inexplicable. I think it is not the main business of philosophy to explain things scientifically. It seems to me that its role is more to consider the structure and bases of proposed explanations, as well as of non-explanatory accounts, not only in science, but also in art and technology?

We have gotten off topic.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Truth shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Favonian (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Phlsph7, a belated welcome to Wikipedia! I came across the page you created

Thank you for your helpful feedback. I think you were right to point out that Modal_realism#Extended_modal_realism goes too much into detail and that Extended modal realism should be more accessible. I hope to address these issues once I have the time.

I've found myself several times in a situation where I saw that a section I wrote for one article might also fit well into another article, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Possible_world&oldid=988646256 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicolai_Hartmann&oldid=990216183. You mentioned that copying should be restricted to one paragraph and I've heard similar opinions from other users. Do you know of an article that has guidelines for this issue?

Wikipedia:Transclusion, but this might be a 3rd option. Phlsph7 (talk

) 05:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Finding time is always the struggle here. Anyway yes, this is a fairly common problem, especially for broader overview articles whose sections are each deserving of their own articles (as an extreme example, see Philosophy where just about every section title is also the title of an article). There's no tried-and-true rule for dealing with this. Many editors use a system where they write up the more specific article (extended modal realism in this case), then copy/paste the lead to serve as the subsection of the parent article (in this case Modal_realism#Extended_modal_realism). Some do transclude that section as you suggested; relevant guideline here. For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that cobbling together an overview article from the lead sections of its various subtopics can create a Frankenstein's monster that flows poorly and is not a very compelling read. So I typically work on the more specific article first, then go to the parent article and try to churn out a paragraph or two that both summarize the subtopic, and fit into the flow of the parent article (though as you said, finding the time is always a trick). If your interests are fairly niche topics (as mine are and, forgive me for saying, yours seem to be) it's likely that no one else will come along to improve your text for quite some time. So it may be worth your time to put that extra coat of polish on these articles before your attention moves on to other things. Pardon the long reply. I hope all is well on your end. Ajpolino (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed reply and the useful links. I think finishing the specific article first before articulating the summary is a good idea. I'll keep the points you raised in mind. All the best, Phlsph7 (talk) 08:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings,

Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pleasure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ecstasy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Maya and Atman.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

In Empirical evidence you accused me of proposing original research. I simply presented my understanding of the literature that I consider relevant to the article. It can very well be that this appears original to you, because you have not read these sources, read them but understood them differently or other reasons. Be careful of not to too quickly accuse others of proposing OR in these situations. You also have your understanding of the sources. We all have our understanding of the sources and our view on their reliability, notability, etc. The only way it can work is by being respectful of each others and discuss in good faith our respective understanding. If the discussion fails, we can do an RfC to include more people in the discussion, but we never accuse someone of not discussing properly or of doing OR, etc., only because we don't reach an agreement. Dominic Mayers (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

It is better to keep to the corresponding talk page for the discussion of the arguments. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but this comment was only indirectly about the article. It was about the importance of discussing the sources in a respectful manner, in particular, of not accusing others of proposing OR simply because we do not share their understanding of the sources. Editors must do a synthesis of the sources to explain the topic to a large audience. We should not conclude immediately that it is OR. It's the role of the editors to understand the relevant points of view in these sources and to present them in a way that is adequate in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is built from reliable secondary sources (reliable journals, well known authors, etc.) and tertiary sources (other encyclopedia) and editors must do a synthesis of all that without giving undue weight to any point of view.

In our case, I have noticed that the JTB point of view on knowledge is being emphasized in tertiary sources on the specific subject "epistemology", but other sources (including other encyclopedia articles) present other points of view on knowledge. In Wikipedia, we should not present the JTB point of view as if it was the truth, even if it shows up in a few encyclopedia. Anyway, I agree that this last paragraph should be discussed in the talk page of the article. Here, my goal (in the first paragraph) was only to say that we must be respectful of others and not accuse each others of pushing OR. Dominic Mayers (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intention, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Donald Davidson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, thanks so much for your additions to the logic article. They're huge improvements and I really appreciate the energy you must have spent to make them. I'm going to tinker with the prose and structure to try to make it more accessible. I apologize in advance if this is annoying (I know I sometimes feel that way when people go messing with things I've written!), and I'll be sure to respect the intent behind your contributions and open a discussion before making any substantive changes. Botterweg14 (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Articles often profit from being based on more than one perspective and the extra subdivisions should be helpful to the reader. I have the impression that our ideas of how to present the material are not too far from each other. So it might be faster to just edit and re-edit the article. If we hit a dead end, we can still move to the talk-page. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is this unnecessary? Uni3993 (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Uni3993 and thanks for bringing this to the talk page. It seems to me that the original formulation makes the issue of the evidential relation itself more explicit. Your formulation, on the other hand, focuses more on the intellectual history, which is not discussed in detail in the article. The same phrase as your suggestion is already used in the section "Nature of the evidential relation", where such details fit better. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, then can we at least add "In philosophy,". Because I want some degree of separation between philosophical and non philosophical discussions on the subject. Because evidential relation is a completely a philosophical subject. For example someone studying Physics that doesn't take the optional History and Philosophy of science course will never hear the term evidential relation. This is the final change I want really and I think its a very reasonable addition. Uni3993 (talk) 11:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue of evidential relations is relevant to many fields, not just philosophy. But you may be right that the specific term "evidential relation" is mainly used in philosophy. In this case, it would make most sense to qualify not the whole statement but only the terminology, i.e. by adding the "in philosophy" at the end of this sentence:

In order for something to act as evidence for a hypothesis, it has to stand in the right relation to it, referred to as the "evidential relation" in philosophy.

Phlsph7 (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please have a look at the current edition it include the variation of the sentence you told. Also one thing to note, as a person very interested in philosophy I can understand you want to consider philosophy as the basis of everything including science but that is not the case science can very well exists without philosophy. In fact famous scientists like Hawking questioned the necessity of philosophy. And again a person that studied physics in university for example will never hear the term "Hypothetico-deductive model" as its a purely related to the philosophy of science which is an optional not required course in physics programs for example. I'm ok with not grouping nature of and evidence and nature of evidential relation as philosophy of evidence, so please accept the current iteration of the last paragraph. After this edit im completely content with the current version of the article. Uni3993 (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't "consider philosophy as the basis of everything", but that is besides the point. Your new version works fine with me. I'm happy that we were able to solve it. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Was that you who removed my comment on Dunning-Kruger? And if so, why?

This whole Dunning-Kruger thing is a big mistake and most of what is being written about it is quite incorrect -- even though some of it is being written by bright thoughtful people.

I've been watching is since the beginning with some amusement, and am now concerned that it is morphing into serious academic error -- so I would like to hear from you if you don't see that point.

My e-mail is [email protected] (I don't operate anonymously, unlike all the bullshit artists out there) and it would be best if you'd just answer me directly rather than through the cumbersome Wikipedia pages. Best wishes, -dlj.

Hello David Lloyd-Jones, I removed your talk page entry because it does not comply with the talk page guidelines as explained in my edit summary here: Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor. One of our main jobs here is to introduce and summarize the academic discourse on the subject. It's not our job to correct the purported errors that the academic community on a specific topic commits as a whole. Implying that anonymous wikipedia editors are all "bullshit artists" will get you blocked very soon, so I suggest that you are more careful with what expressions you use. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Umm - why did you revert that revision on Philosophical methodology? The paragraph is unwieldy to say the least - nearly impenetrable. The paragraph is not a paragraph that anyone wrote; rather, it is the accumulation of multiple revisions and additions over several years. People keep adding to it, until it looks like the way it does. "A camel is a horse designed by committee." The fact of the matter is that the paragraph describes multiple, distinct elements - in other words, it is not a coherent paragraph, per se, and as such readily lends itself to a bullet list. The bullet list was perfectly appropriate.

If you have a better suggestion for improving or restructuring this paragraph, by all means make it, but imperiously declaring that a bullet list is not appropriate for the introduction, and then reverting without making any improvement, is, well, imperious. What do you suggest? How would you improve this? How would you make this accessible? And who are you to decide how this article should look?

Zweifel (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Zweifel and thanks for bringing up the issue. I agree with you that the paragraph is long but I don't think that it is impenetrable or inaccessible. However, the length is to be expected since it constitutes a summary of the section "Methods", which contains the bulk of the material of the whole article. In principle, the idea of converting it into a list is not bad, I agree. As you see in your list, each point corresponds to one of the subsections. Because of this, the list is in one sense superfluous since the content box right below the lead lists all the subsections as well.

My main objection to your suggestion is that the lead section is not a good place for long lists. If you have a look around at other wikipedia articles on philosophical topics (or, for that matter, on any topic) there are only few articles that use a list in their lead section and even fewer (if any?) that use a very long list.

Another approach would be to split the paragraph into two, maybe right after the sentence on "ordinary language philosophy". This has the advantage of getting the paragraph size down but it has the disadvantage of having two separate paragraphs summarizing the section "Methods". Phlsph7 (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

This was heavy-handed. You made this decision to revert the edit without consultation on the talk page. This page does not belong to you. If you have the perception that lists are inappropriate in introductory sections, so be it, but I have been a Wikipedia editor for quite a long time, and I have a different perception. You made this change without considering Wikipedia:Consensus. I literally took the text from the original and displayed it as a list. I made no substantive change to the article. This is not your article, and you did not discuss the reversion in the Talk page. You simply did it. Zweifel (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I was following Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, which is a common and useful practice for editors. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

vague please elaborate Lispenard (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello Lispenard, there are various linguistic problems with your suggestions, for example "to grasp Platonic form" ("a Platonic form", "the Platonic form" or "Platonic forms"?), "failing remark" ("a failing remark" or "failing to remark"?), or "ill-able" (unable), among others. I don't want to offend you but it sounds to me that these expressions were originally formed in another language with a quite different structure of articles and prepositions and were then translated word-by-word to English, which usually does not work. However, your latest edit is fine. Phlsph7 (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

ill-able, confer: ill-equipped, ill-prepared, ill-advised

I prefer this over unable, because ill-able leaves the door somewhat ajar to a question of ability, while unable indicates more of a being shut and locked tight sort of predicament. Lispenard (talk) 11:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

i don't know: it's a matter of style and not meaning here, so it can be written either way.

Foregoing (to) pay any caution, or (to) heed any warning, the reckless man set out quickly in search of the rumoured treasure. Lispenard (talk) 11:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

if confusing then by all means include "to" in an infinitive Lispenard (talk) 11:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

to grasp Platonic form

so, if you"re going to say

On this view, proven difficulty may arise wherein, being scarcely fit and not well able to come in contact with Platonic form, the mind fail remark said unique origination, and blinded, the soul fail experience, left only together the neglect to thereby differentiate as such the genuine and the distinct, wholly original and apart from any mere simulacra found about the sensory world. Lispenard (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

maybe substitute enjoy for differentiate, adds a note of optimism Lispenard (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I checked a few major dictionaries, like the American Heritage Dictionary or Collins Dictionary: they don't have the term "ill-able". However, it's often difficult to draw the line between false and extremely uncommon. Many expressions are acceptable in poetry that constitute errors in regular texts. In normal contexts, for example, countable nouns like "Platonic form" need an article (or a similar expression) in their singular form. It's usually advantageous for encyclopedia articles to choose the formulation the reader is most familiar with, everything else being equal. This is true especially when trying to convey difficult ideas, as in the section on the Platonic theory of thought. Phlsph7 (talk) 04:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

An article you recently created,

Hello

MOS:LEADCITE. Please let me know which specific claim you think is unsourced in case you still have doubts. The sources also establish notability, for example, here, here, or here. If you still believe that the topic lacks notability despite these sources, then please explain your reasons. Phlsph7 (talk

) 16:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Please read

WP:NOTESSAY PRAXIDICAE💕

16:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTESSAY and I do not think that it applies here. Could you cite the passages you believe express "particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts)"? Phlsph7 (talk

) 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I've answered all the doubts raised by you. I'll go ahead and restore the article to the mainspace unless you have more to add. Phlsph7 (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I have proceeded with the move since there was no further response. If you still have doubts about the quality of the article then please discuss them either here or on the article talk page instead of moving the article again. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Definitions of knowledge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definitions of knowledge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PRAXIDICAE💕 14:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:24, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a case of disruptive editing. Your nomination of deletion is in violation of

WP:BUNDLE. I don't object to you starting a new AFD for this article, as I explained in my edit summary. It's not a good idea to give a blocking warning for the first revert. I suggest that you follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle here. Phlsph7 (talk

) 18:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You're welcome to make your arguments at AFD but you are not permitted to remove the AFD tags or nominations within the AFD itself. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I've asked for a third opinion on this issue. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the old infobox. I just wanted to spruce things up w/ a portrait. -NW Navywalrus (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to you for adding the image. That was long overdue. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

For Importance. What an...important topic! I had honestly never considered it as an encyclopedic subject before but you did a smashing job. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, the feedback is really appreciated! Phlsph7 (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

		The Philosophy Barnstar
		For your numerous contributions to the philosophy side of Wikipedia, standing firm against (an) unconstructive deletionist(s). 74.133.120.215 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's your original sentence to which you have reverted:

Having eaten the first cookie, Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative. But after having tasted one cookie, Gifre would freely decide to continue eating cookies until the whole bag is finished, which would result in a terrible stomach ache and would be the worst alternative.

I don't accept the logic of your reason for reversion, but even if the logic is correct, then in the phrase "could stop eating cookies", could should also be would. I still contend that could is logically and semantically correct in both instances.

I won't undo your reversion (if at all) at least until I hear your side. Harry Audus (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello Harry Audus. Thanks for your improvements to the article Consequentialism and for bringing this issue to the talk page. As for this particular change, I hope we can agree at least on two things: (1) both versions are gramatically correct; (2) they have slightly different meanings.

The central point is that Gifre would decide to continue eating even thought he could stop. This point is lost in your first suggestion. We turn it into a contradiction if we implement your second suggestion by changing "Gifre could stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative" into "Gifre would stop eating cookies, which is the best alternative". In this case, he would stop eating and he would continue eating. It might be helpful for the discussion if you have a short look at the source of this thought experiment in Douglas W. Portmore's "Opting for the Best: Oughts and Options", chapter "5. Rationalist Maximalism". Phlsph7 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For all the work you've done creating, expanding and improving important philosophy articles, and for putting up with recent discussions at WikiProject Philosophy here and at de.wiki. talk ) 18:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

(P.S. I also realised that per

Thanks a lot! This helps to keep the motivation up. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for making a suggestion at Ontology that could salvage at least some of my work there. I'm done editing that page, because the conversation became too toxic for me to enjoy it anymore. Maybe I'd revisit it later. I hope you will make the edit you suggested. Have a nice day.Larataguera (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what you would do to improve this article, if you're interested:

Hi

Biogeographist and thanks for pointing me to this article. It cites only one source: pages 3 - 11 from "Ideas of the great philosophers" by William S Sahakian and Mabel Lewis Sahakian. It follows this sources very closely: both contain one short section named "Time", another named "Custom", another named "Intuition", etc. The paraphrase seems to be sufficient that it does not constitute a copyright violation, at least on the first look. And Earwig

does not report any copyright violations either. But giving so much weight to such a short source text is definitely not a good idea.

The topic in itself seems to make sense. There are apparently other reliable sources on this topic that could be used, like here, here, here, here, and here. I think it would be a good idea to include them in the text and to modify the text accordingly: it should represent more or less the gist of what most of these sources agree on and not just everything a single source has to say on the topic. This may also reveal some questionable or false information. For example, as far as I know,

naive realism is usually understood as a theory of perception without implying the metaphysical claim that "sounds beyond the range of human hearing" and "x-rays" do not exist. I've added this to the bottom of my todo list, but this may still take quite a while before I get to it, if I do. But I would be happy to assist if you or someone else wants to give it a try. Phlsph7 (talk

) 16:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks; those are good points. I just searched for criteri* in The Oxford Handbook of Truth, which turned up some possible leads in multiple chapters, including the chapter on "Truth pluralism", which suggests right away a link to

Biogeographist (talk

) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The topic apparently overlaps with

theories of truth. One difference seems to be that theories of truth are mainly about determining the nature of truth while criteria of truth are wider in the sense that they are about how to figure out whether something is true, like looking for possible clues that something is true. Phlsph7 (talk

) 08:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 14:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the feedback on my reviews! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to second the views of Gog the Mild after you did an excellently comprehensive GA review of one of my efforts. Your work improved the article enormously and I really appreciate your efforts. Well done. BcJvs | talk UTC 14:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

What is "the GAN"? — Jacona (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Good article nominations. The article Purdue University is currently listed as good article nominee, as shown on its talk page. One requirement for successful nominations is that the article is well-sourced, which, unfortunately, it is not. Phlsph7 (talk

) 18:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity! — Jacona (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7. You've added multiple short form reference ls to this article, without defining what those works are. For instance you've added "Håkansson & Westander 2013" but you need to add a full cite to explain what work that is referring to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi ActivelyDisinterested and thanks for letting me know. I've added the sources in my last edit. There are still various reference errors so it will take me a little longer to sort them out. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Much thanks. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:58, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, again, thank you for your original review of the GAN for Huntsville, Alabama. I've rewritten a lot of the article and changed the things you suggested, and have renominated in. Would you mind reviewing it again? Thank you! --MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi MyCatIsAChonk and thanks for all the changes following the last nomination. All the "citation needed" tags have been addressed and the unreliable sources were removed. I just spotted a few minor claims that still lack sources:

• Major stations include WHNT 19.1 CBS, WHIQ 25.1 PBS/Alabama Public Television, WAFF 48.1 NBC, and WZDX 54.1 FOX.
• The airport is a general aviation airport and does not have any regularly-scheduled commercial services.
• The former chief of police was appointed as its director.
• These organizations are located in Huntsville but operate both in the city and outside with HCRU responding to many cave rescue calls coming from caves well outside the city limits.

Another thing that caught my eye is that the article has many subsections, which makes the contents overview really long. You could use "{{TOC limit|3}}" to exclude the subsubsection from the overview.

From what I can tell, all the other points from the last review have also been addressed. It looks much better now. It's probably better if someone else does the second review. Good luck with the GAN! Phlsph7 (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again! —MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC) MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice work! Such vital-topic articles deserve it. After it passes the GA hurdle (shouldn't be too difficult) please consider nominating it for DYK for some Main Page exposure. BorgQueen (talk) 09:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: Thanks for the feedback! The DYK nomination afterwards sounds like a good idea. Do you have some experience concerning the DYK process? Phlsph7 (talk) 09:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Well yes, if you're not familiar with it, I can nominate it for you. Unless someone else beats me to it, that is. Lol. BorgQueen (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Great, I would get back to you once the process is complete so we can figure something out. Judging from my other GA nominations, it may take a while though. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought this might be quicker for reviewers to read. If you don't like it, please feel free to revert. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Thanks a lot for the help! This makes it much easier to gloss over the information. I think the script does not see explanatory footnotes as references but please let me know if you come across cases where it gets it wrong. Feel free to make more changes if something catches your eye. I usually check the changes so I'll make adjustments if I think something is off the mark. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. How does the script interact with these two bits of wikitext?

• <ref name="Levi" group="Notes">Levi (2012), pp. 32–37.</ref>
• <ref name="Levi" group="Notes">Numbers are given as thousands of pairs of Levi jeans sold worldwide in each year.</ref>

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

References usually are displayed as "[1][2][3]" while other footnotes usually have the form "[a][b][c]" or "[i][ii][iii]". The script looks whether there is a number inside the brackets. If yes, it sees it a reference. If no, it sees it as an explanatory footnote. Your examples are displayed as "[Notes 1]" and are categorized as references because of the number "1". So the second one is falsely treated as a reference. Do you know if this style is commonly used for references or for notes? It would be relatively easy to modify the script to check whether the term "Notes" appears inside the brackets. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I just had a look:

WP:EXPLNOTE list one style as "[note 1]". it might be a good idea to modify the script for that. Phlsph7 (talk

) 18:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the simplest and most reliable way to address this is to document it as a limitation, and then not worry about it ("It's not a bug – it's a feature!"). There are always going to be a certain number of <ref>Short explanations</ref> that aren't separated from the list of sources at all, so the problem will exist even if you fix this one.

The opposite problem also exists. I used a non-standard approach when presenting a specific example in Breast cancer awareness#Increased resources for treatment and research (end of the first paragraph). Its primary purpose is "explanatory", but it also contains a source. I don't think you should set your goal on Six Sigma levels of success. It might even be good for it to have some obviously wrong items, to remind reviewers not to blindly do whatever the computer says to do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified the script to take care of the standards for explanatory footnotes discussed at

WP:EXPLNOTE. But not all articles follow these standards and I'm sure there are many more styles out there not discussed in this document. You are right this should be mentioned as a limitation so I restored a modified version of your explanation. Phlsph7 (talk

) 09:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope your script results in more sources being added. It sometimes feels like experienced editors spend more time removing (possibly bad) sources than adding them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk

Today this concept [conscious] has become part of semantics, psychiatry and neurology [meaning, cognition, perception]. When talking in general conversation...try using awareness and natural. The lead paragraph for Experience is without category or content, "needs major work". Please review what you know about conscious, it has very much changed because of Process philosophy for philosophy...Thanks for kind tolerance of my attempts to edit.Arnbiology (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello Arnbiology and thanks for your concern for the article Experience. I'm not sure what you mean by the claim that The lead paragraph for Experience is without category or content. The very first sentence associated the term with various categories. And this is a form of content.

Wikipedia tries to provide a general perspective on its topics and not specifically the perspective associated with process philosophy. Various of your comments indicate that your primary motivation for contributing to Wikipedia is to promote process philosophy. In that case, Wikipedia may not be the right to publish your ideas, see

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you want to write on process philosophy then I suggest that you focus on articles that have specifically this topic and leave other articles as they are. Phlsph7 (talk

) 17:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes yes, your right...off to learn and promote the history of deep semantics for my grandchildren's well being, thanksArnbiology (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Phlsph7! I've considered your reversion of an edit done by myself, done in Logic, however, there really aren't much sources to this concept and the reason of such edit was for readers to start conceiving this idea. Greetings! Active2023 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello

WP:VERIFY. It states that "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources". In this sense, Wikipedia just reports what is already published elsewhere and does not aim to popularize newly conceived ideas, see WP:No original research. Articles on very general topics, like Logic, should give a bird's-eye view of their field and only go over the most important ideas discussed in the academic literature. Phlsph7 (talk

) 05:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, did you understand these logical sentences that were written? Active2023 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think I have a rough idea of what you were trying to express. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk

Hi, I have been cleaning up Special:WantedTemplates and noticed that your javascript page is showing up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:" + "subst:cn. This is because the backend software is parsing the curly braces as templates. An easy way to fix this is to put

// <nowiki>

at the top of your script, and

// </nowiki>

at the bottom of your script. This won't impact the functionality, since they are in javascript comments, but will remove the pages from Special:WantedTemplates. Thanks in advance for your help! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello Plastikspork and thanks for the info. I followed your suggestion and it seems to work. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

On 20 March 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Knowledge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is controversial whether knowledge is the same as justified true belief? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Knowledge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Knowledge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I declined your CSD request at

Thanks for the explanation, I followed your suggestion. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

On 15 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Logic translation, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that logic translations can be used to analyze whether arguments expressed in ordinary language are correct? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Logic translation. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Logic translation), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Non-pegasus -- Non-pegasus (talk

Hello Non-pegasus and thanks for your review! I'm glad that you caught the recently flagged copyright problem for the image of the Versailles poster. Your suggestion works fine as an alternative so I replaced the image and slightly modified the text. Please let me know if other issues catch your eye. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the review, congratulations on your newest Good Article!

A bot will add the good article icon to the article and will remove the nomination from the GA nominations page. This bot should also use GANotice to send you a message that the article has passed. I have added Logical reasoning to the list of "Philosophy" Good articles under the "Philosophy and Religion" section. Well done 🦄 Non-pegasus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time. I've copied part of our exchange here to the review page since this background information may be of interest to other editors concerned with the article and the review. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

		Scholarly Barnstar
		For your ongoing revamp of Logic which made me say "holy cow" when I looked at the article just now. Botterweg14 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@Botterweg14: Thanks a lot, I really appreciate the recognition. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk

Experience is a natural state[1] not a conscious state, please look at "Experience lead paragraph again", and remove any reference to conscious states from the lead. Think about it, thanks ArnoldArnbiology (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC

Thank you for your input. You are right that some theorists consider experience a natural state. Experience is commonly associated with consciousness, see the sources in the section Experience#As_conscious_event or, for example, [1]. I'm not sure what background assumptions you hold, but, in a general sense, experience can be both conscious and natural, there is no contradiction here. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

|loc=[https://www.python.org/ Python] § Lingzhi (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to express. Regarding this edit: My point was the that, as far as I can tell, the parameter "loc-url" is not defined for the Template:Sfn. So {{sfn|Smith|loc-url=http://example.com/|loc=chapter 1}} does not work but can be replaced by {{sfn|Smith|loc=[http://example.com/ chapter 1]}} to get the same effect. See Template:Sfn#Adding_a_URL_for_the_page_or_location. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My point == your point :-)  § Lingzhi (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

PS: BTW, I'm fooling with {{sfnm}} in my sandbox. Have a look. I'm having trouble with the et al cites, but I seem to recall there was a workaround. Plus "Hintikka & Spade" isn't correctly formatted yet... Actually, I think there are 4 versions in the Bibliography.

PPS: You need to decide between "Eemeren, Frans H. van" and "van Eemeren, Frans H." In Bibliography, two instances of the former, one of the latter. § Lingzhi (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Normally, I use the multiref2-template but if all references are in the sfn format, the sfnm-template seems to be more useful. I assume it should be "van Eemeren, Frans H." so I changed it accordingly. I removed the additional versions of "Hintikka & Spade": they all refer to same article and only differ concerning the relevant section. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) Yes, I initially tried to adhere to your preferred style by using the {{multiref2}} format. But when I placed {{sfn}} templates inside {{multiref2}}, the multi-line formatting of the latter displayed in body text. It was an ugly mess... BTW, what does "em1589" in this mean: "Pedemonte 2018, pp. em1589"? § Lingzhi (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Inside multiref2, you can use

harvnb instead of sfn, the basic parameters are the same otherwise. It seems "em1589" is the article number used by the publisher. I replaced it since this has nothing to do with the page number. After the reference overhaul, the article looks much tidier now. Phlsph7 (talk

) 07:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad it looks better. I wrote a couple Python programs to fix it. :-) So now I have to start actually reading it, which will take time. Days, at least. :-) BTW, if you are headed to FAC, don't be shocked if it fails the first time. It's huge and complicated. There are many nooks and crannies where errors could hide. And there are always many details to be sharpened. It's gonna be a big job. You might wanna get one or two others to collaborate with you, perhaps from WikiProject Philosophy. § Lingzhi (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Using scripts to assist in this task sounds like a good idea. Doing all of this by hand would have been incredibly laborious. I would like to get the article to FA eventually but you are right that this would be a rather big project. I'll have to see how to go about that. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

(←) I'm a little busy at the moment. I'm gonna do a source spot check later, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, sometime soon-ish. if you have any pdfs you wanna email me, now would be a good time. :-)  § Lingzhi (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that things are moving forward. Many of the sources are available online, either in full or as a partial preview covering the relevant pages. If you lack access to some particular references that should be checked then please let me know so I can see if I can find links or provide quotations. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:53, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of 125.27.3.235 -- 125.27.3.235 (talk

On 12 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Declarative knowledge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that declarative knowledge is an awareness of facts that differs from practical knowledge in the form of skills and knowledge by acquaintance based on experiential familiarity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Declarative knowledge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Declarative knowledge), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I have seen that your article

Hello Dedhert.Jr and thanks for pointing this out. It's not a perfect match but the section "Philosophies and philosophical movements" is probably the best fit.

I'm hoping to get it to FA status. It could be quite a challenge since with such a wide and complex article, many things can go wrong. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Good luck for FAC! Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey. I was by coincidence looking at the Reward Board and saw your two articles, including Logic. Then I talked to the wub about Education (I am an English teacher). He said you are working on it, which I did not know... Are you gonna go for that reward? I could find another article... I call dibs one... I call dibs on History of science. :-)  § Lingzhi (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi. So far, I have done most of the work on my own so I would be happy to get some outside feedback. I've already implemented most of the main changes. There are still various minor things that I was planning to do over the next few days before the GA nomination. But help is always appreciated. I was thinking about going for the reward but this is probably still months from now, given the review waiting times for this type of article.

The article History of science sounds like an interesting choice. It's probably too long and has a huge table of contents. Various subsections and passages lack references. That could be a project to keep you engaged for a while. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Dunning–Kruger effect you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of TompaDompa -- TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

On 21 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Logic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Aristotle's system of logic formed the foundation of logical thought for more than 2,000 years until the advent of modern symbolic logic? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Logic. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Logic), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Your work on Logic and Knowledge is simply impressive! Makes one proud of Wikipedia!

WatkynBassett (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@WatkynBassett: Thanks a lot for the recognition and the unique reward! Phlsph7 (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Would this Guardian source be useful for intrapersonal communication? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 09:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Vortex3427 and thanks for the suggestion. It is a reliable source so it could be used in the article. I'm not sure how to best use it. Its main topic is inner voices, which belongs to verbal inner intrapersonal communication. This is covered in the section Intrapersonal communication#Types. But we have to be careful since it is written for a rather general audience and contains many simplifications. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The article Knowledge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Knowledge for comments about the article, and Talk:Knowledge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

		Vital Barnstar
		Long overdue. You did some insane work to improve articles in the Vital list. Your contributions will not go unnoticed by the readers.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, thinking about it... I should work harder to get space-related articles to GA. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thank you for the barnstar! It's a good encouragement to keep contributing. Some of the vital articles can be difficult to improve if they attract argumentative editors with very different opinions. I was lucky with the ones I recently worked with since the process went relatively smooth. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your readability script which I have just installed after learning of it here.

Might you have time to add SMOG to it in future? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Chidgk1 and thanks for the suggestion. I managed to include a rough implementation. It uses a few simplification to make the process easier, like ignoring the SMOG rules about the ten-sentence samples, numbers, and abbreviations. I compared it with some other online SMOG calculators and it gets roughly the same results. The main source of error is probably the syllable count for each word. Phlsph7 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you want to add "In common usage, philosophy and cognitive science," to articles about concepts used in philosophy, cognitive science and outside any academic field (common usage)? 79.131.29.193 (talk) 03:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

We can discuss the issue once your

stopping your edits to articles and talk pages. Phlsph7 (talk

) 17:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not Uni3993's sock-poppet, I'm someone else. But you should be able to give me the reason even if you think I am him. --119.198.90.189 (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk

) 21:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

:)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your work on Logic, Knowledge, and other articles of huge importance but (until you!) dubious quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Your

Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of AirshipJungleman29 -- AirshipJungleman29 (talk

On 6 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Schramm's model of communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Schramm's model of communication introduced the idea of feedback loops to understand communication? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Schramm's model of communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Schramm's model of communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I spent a tedious 30+ minutes manually alphabetizing the bibliography on the philosophy page at some point prior to your appending further sources yesterday. I'll integrate those ones, but would you mind observing the alphabetical organization moving forward? Besides just looking cleaner, it makes it easier for other odd folks like me, who typically skim the bibliography to decide if an entry/article/book is even serious enough to be worth reading.

(I did not convert any <ref> citations because I'm really hoping that they mostly drop out over the course of other content-based edits. Also: even more tedious. If we get the article to a place we're happy with, we can deal with those then.)

Thanks!

@

PatrickJWelsh

: Sorry for the extra work and thanks for taking care of it! It's a good idea to put them in alphabetical order right when adding them.

I'm planning convert all the references to the short footnote format (like in the article history of philosophy) sometime in the next few days to have a consistent reference format. I have a script that does half of the job, so hopefully it won't be too much work.

On a related note: since our Bibliography subsection is already quite long and keeps on growing, I don't think that we need the long section "Further reading". I was thinking about moving it to the article Outline of philosophy, which only has a very short section on philosophical literature. What do you think? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, hey! – If you have a semi-automated way of putting everything in order all at once, then by all means just tack stuff on to the end while you're in the middle of this large-scale edit. I didn't know that was possible. It doesn't bother me if the bibliography is kind of a mess for a few weeks or whatever. My concern was just that if no one did anything now it would only just get worse and worse.

Also, yes, I agree about getting rid of the Further reading list. These are, in my view, uselessly arbitrary. This is a great time to delete it completely. I can't imagine anyone conferring with even a better curated list.

Cheers,

talk

) 17:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@

PatrickJWelsh: For now, I just moved them. But I agree with your concerns since the problem was just moved from Philosophy to Outline of philosophy. Maybe the best course of action would to remove most of what was moved except for a few of the key works in the subsection Outline of philosophy#Reference works. Phlsph7 (talk

) 07:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's a good compromise in case anyone thinks it is important to maintain. (My theory is that the only people who pay any attention to these lists are editors who only want to add their own favorite titles to already overlong lists. But this is just a hunch. I have no real data.)

talk

) 16:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk

On 14 July 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article History of philosophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the history of philosophy in India is characterized by its combined interest in the nature of reality, the ways of arriving at knowledge, and the spiritual question of how to reach enlightenment? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/History of philosophy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, History of philosophy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Phlsph7:, I'm a fan of some of your AI work and it looks like we have some overlapping interests. These include AI (I'm pretty interested in exploiting AI for reading / note taking + reading, and do bits and pieces in my real life). If you fancied comparing notes / paper reading history sometime I'd be interested. Talpedia 13:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Talpedia, that sounds like an interesting idea! I have the impression that a good understanding of the technology is essential to properly make use of it and to avoid all the pitfalls. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The article Logical reasoning you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logical reasoning for comments about the article, and Talk:Logical reasoning/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Non-pegasus -- Non-pegasus (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Logic you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logic for comments about the article, and Talk:Logic/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Lingzhi.Renascence -- Lingzhi.Renascence (talk) 12:42, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here .
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Augustios Paleo -- Augustios Paleo (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bart Terpstra -- Bart Terpstra (talk

On

Source–Message–Channel–Receiver model, all forms of communication are attempts to influence the behavior of the audience? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Source–Message–Channel–Receiver model of communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk

Hey Phlsph7, I was reading Declarative knowledge and I had a suggestion for citing multiple sources in one reference. You may find the Template:sfnm easier to use and much more aesthetically pleasing. Keep up the great work! Cheers. — Golden ^talk 16:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello Golden and thanks for the suggestion. I have considered using the sfnm template. One thing I dislike about it is that it displays all the references in the same line. This can get confusing if there are many references. The multiref2 template uses a new line for each reference, which I find more helpful for readers. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylnuge -- Dylnuge (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Argenti Aertheri -- Argenti Aertheri (talk

The article

On 20 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Intrapersonal communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some theorists claim that intrapersonal communication is the basis of all communication? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Intrapersonal communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Intrapersonal communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

On 23 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Misanthropy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some misanthropes reject humanity because of how humans treat other animals? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Misanthropy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Misanthropy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,422 views (618.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of August 2023 – nice work!

) 03:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Barnstars for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for improving the article Philosphy! Your work is appreciated. The person who loves reading (talk ) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks for improving a level-1 vital article, Philosphy, to good article status! The person who loves reading (talk ) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Much congrats on fulfilling the rewards board challenge, Phlsph7! Feel free to consider me a co-sponsor of the GA barnstar. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk

Hey @Phlsph7, I have no experience working with Wikipedia scripts (although I probably ought to educate myself), but I'm wondering if you have any documentation on the script that, if I understand correctly, you used to at least partially convert ref tags to sfn, or to generate a proper list of works cited?

I've been cleaning up the Martin Heidegger page, and this could save me a lot of tedious labor. Ref tags work fine on short articles, but on larger articles with long histories they make everything very cluttered. It is more difficult to assess sourcing issues for the article as a whole, and it is also more difficult to edit around all the extra text.

Let me know —

Cheers,

@

PatrickJWelsh: I haven't published the script I used because it is very unintuitive, far from foolproof, and does not work for all articles. It's semi-automatic and requires a few manual steps. The first step is manual: all reference-tags need to use one of the cite-templates, like "cite book" or "cite journal".^[a]

Unfortunately, this affects many references (90 by my count) in the Heidegger article:

You would have to do something like this for all the others. There would be one more manual step later to ensure that the parameters of the cite templates are in order, but that is usually less of a problem. The rest is automatic (if it works). If you want to go through with the long first step, I would help you with the rest. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's much less automated than I had assumed. I think for me, at least in this case, it would be very little less work just to do it all manually (if I do it at all).

Thanks so much, though, for offering to help!

It's genuinely baffling to me how this site doesn't already have (and employ by default) a template for references that would auto-populate a standardized bibliography. But I guess that's neither here nor there.

Cheers,

talk

) 15:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@

PatrickJWelsh: The amount of work depends a lot on the state of the article. In the case of Philosophy, it was not too much work since most references already used the cite-templates. My impression is that the sfn-format is more of a standard for GAs and FAs while most other articles depend on regular ref-tags. Phlsph7 (talk

) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Logic, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

On 4 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dunning–Kruger effect, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dunning–Kruger effect), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,700 views (862.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2023 – nice work!

On 10 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Models of communication, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that one of the earliest models of communication was developed by Aristotle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Models of communication. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Models of communication), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7, I am looking at running Logic as the TFA on 5 November. Given that it is a bit on the technical sode, I wondered if you fancied having first stab at a draft blurb? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for letting me know, I would be happy to prepare a first draft. Do you think it might be a better idea to wait for the World Logic Day on 14 January? I don't know if that matters much. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Delaying or not is your call. Some people like to tie their TFAs to a "Day" or anniversary, others are not so bothered. Let me know how you decide. If you go for 14 Jan you will need to list the article at TFAP and in due course nominate it at TFAR. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I guess the date is not that important so 5 November would be fine. I went ahead and wrote a first draft, see Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests/Logic. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You can add it to TFA Requests if you wish, for additional feedback. In any event I plan to run it in November. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

On 11 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Education, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is controversial whether indoctrination is a form of education? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Education. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Education), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi I saw you want to improve the

Hello

Coldbolt and thanks for the suggestions. Having examples of the different types of motivation is a good idea. One difficulty with articles on very broad topics, and also a problem with the article in its current form, is that one has to be very selective about what to include. As far as I'm aware, Csikszentmihalyi's theories are usually not discussed in detail in overview works on motivation. But maybe a remark can be added in the section on intrinsic motivation. I'll keep an eye on this as I go about the literature review and I'll see if it is justified to include something. Phlsph7 (talk

) 07:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

On 12 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irredentism, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 is an example of irredentism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irredentism. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Irredentism), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The article Schramm's model of communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Schramm's model of communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Schramm's model of communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your comments when reviewing the article about Shrewsbury. One comment I didn't quite follow was: "avoid American English (travellers)", what word would you suggest in preference? Regards Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

@Murgatroyd49: Sorry, I got mixed up there. You can ignore the comment, the article seems to be consistent in its usage of British English. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, I was literally lost for words over that one :-) Working through all your other points at the moment. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Please let me know if there are other confusing points. I used Grammarly for spellchecking and it showed a few more potential minor issues, like missing commas and hyphens. It might be good to use it or another spellchecker before a GA renomination. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, but I am certain that at least 90% of what you thought was not sourced was. I added yet more references, and I am now confident that 95-99% is sourced. (Like all good scientists I will never claim 100%.) I admit that the article is quite technical, but that's the nature of the beast. (It is very mild compared to the literature.) Ldm1954 (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Electron_diffraction/GA1 to avoid having the same exchange in 2 different places. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The article

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

The article Intrapersonal communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Intrapersonal communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Intrapersonal communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether I've put this one and Schramm's model of communication under the most appropriate categories at Wikipedia:Good articles - feel free to move them around there. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a good fit in our GA categories for topics in communication theory. Maybe "Culture and cultural studies" is as good as it gets so I'll leave it as it is. Another candidate would be "Anthropology, anthropologists, sociology and sociologists". Phlsph7 (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For being bold enough to FAC Communication, itself only the latest in a series of very high-level editing. There is a reason few tackle these. CMD (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you reverted my edit? The referenced article does support the thesis that this is a theoretical physically consistent possibility? Strecosaurus (talk) 22:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello Strecosaurus and thanks for your efforts at improving this article. The main reason why I removed this addition was that it is not supported by the source: the source does not discuss infinite regresses anywhere. Another reason is that the claim it makes is possibly false: not everything that is infinite is an infinite regress.

As a sidenote: I saw that you added the specific source https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02338 to several different articles. This could be considered a form of reference spamming, see

WP:COI). In this case, it would probably be best not to avoid this type of editing. Phlsph7 (talk

) 07:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, that answers my question. (And I got this article from one of Aron Ra's recent videos discussing whether the Universe can be eternal into the past purely on physics grounds or not, and it was also linked in the video description; as a Wikipedian I added it where it seemed appropriate, seems like an interesting result, feel free to revert if you think otherwise.) Strecosaurus (talk) 12:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The article Irredentism you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Irredentism for comments about the article, and Talk:Irredentism/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Augustios Paleo -- Augustios Paleo (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Declarative knowledge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Declarative knowledge for comments about the article, and Talk:Declarative knowledge/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Misanthropy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Misanthropy for comments about the article, and Talk:Misanthropy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The article

The article Communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Bart Terpstra -- Bart Terpstra (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

On 7 October 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Philosophy, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that physics, chemistry, and biology were all part of philosophy before they became separate disciplines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Philosophy. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Philosophy), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a jaw dropping achievement -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious

logic and philosophy

Thank you for quality articles around thinking, such as Logic, Philosophy, Education and Models of communication, for collaboration and quality reviewing, for a model of a modest user page, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no.

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks a lot for the award! Phlsph7 (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

November songs

my story today

Thank you today for Logic, "about the study of correct reasoning. It is one of the main branches of philosophy."! - You are a model of communication, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Huntsville, Alabama has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Communication, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Phlsph7! Sorry I couldn't make it to the review. — Golden ^talk 13:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Many congrats on the TFA today. It's so great to see these general-topic FAs. FrB.TG (talk) 10:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback! Phlsph7 (talk) 12:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Wikipedia Editor Retention Project )

I am nominating Phlsph7 for substantial contributions to some of Wikipedia's most important and vital articles, including Philosophy, Logic, Communication, Education, and Knowledge. These articles have spent years in sub-standard condition with no one willing to do the work to fix them, but Phlsph7 has brought them all to good article status in a matter of months. They have just guided Logic through FAC with tact and forbearance with top-tier contributions. This is a user who is literally making knowledge more accessible and is a worthy recipient. This nomination was seconded by User:Prodraxis, User:AirshipJungleman29 and Gog the Mild

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Logic

Phlsph7

Editor of the Week for the week beginning November 12, 2023

A major contributor to some of Wikipedia's most important and vital articles that were in sub-standard condition. Phlsph7 brought them all to good article status in a matter of months with forbearance and top-tier contributions. This user makes knowledge more accessible to all.

Recognized for

Increasing Available Knowledge

Notable work(s)

Philosophy, Logic, Communication, Education, and Knowledge

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 11:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien, Prodraxis, AirshipJungleman29, Gog the Mild, and Buster7: This is a surprise indeed! Thanks a lot for the recognition, I really appreciate the kind words. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7. Your additions to Arithmetic caused a lot of no target errors. If you haven't already you should turn on the error messages for this type of reference, you can find the details of how to do so here Category:Harv and Sfn template errors. I've fixed most of the errors using the URLs used in the page numbers of the references, but a few are still missing. Could you add the required cites for "Nagel 2002", "EoC staff 2016", and "Hosch 2023" to the Sources section or let me know what works these refer to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: It seems I forgot to add all the relevant sources. Thanks for letting me know and for adding several of the missing sources. I now added the remaining ones. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Phlsph7. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:36, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

The article

The article Dunning–Kruger effect you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect for comments about the article, and Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of BennyOnTheLoose -- BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Logic translation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Logic translation for comments about the article, and Talk:Logic translation/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dylnuge -- Dylnuge (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Philosophy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Philosophy for comments about the article, and Talk:Philosophy/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Thebiguglyalien -- Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The article Models of communication you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Models of communication for comments about the article, and Talk:Models of communication/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Argenti Aertheri -- Argenti Aertheri (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For your decisions to rescue articles such as Logic and Philosophy with a speed and skill few have managed before. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, AirshipJungleman29! Phlsph7 (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

The article Education you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Education for comments about the article, and Talk:Education/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of DimensionalFusion -- DimensionalFusion (talk) 23:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of ThatChemist25 -- ThatChemist25 (talk

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You had made Wikipedia a much better place. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:18, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Just cam here to say the same thing! You are on a roll with all of these high quality, high importance articles. I hope the

WP:DISCORD are rooting you for you as well. Panini! • 🥪

06:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane and Panini!: Thanks a lot for your kind and encouraging comments! This helps keep motivation up. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

		The Star of Sophia
		The Star of Sophia is awarded by acclamation of the larger WikiProject Philosophy community to editors who have made an outstanding contribution to the coverage of philosophy on Wikipedia. This award has been bestowed upon FA status, as well as for almost single-handedly creating History of philosophy – among many other contributions to this WikiProject. In the words of warshy , "His contributions are just amazing." Many thanks for all of your excellent work! talk ) 21:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

While I have got nothing against you as a person, I am somewhat annoyed by your comments at the RfC. I don't think it is fair to say I'm trying to "put stones in people's way"; I'm trying to establish the minimal possible framework of policy for breathing room to explore the potential of a new technology. You may have noticed that, every time there's one of those big project-wide discussions about LLMs, there's a sizeable contingent of people who simply say that they're garbage and we need to ban them entirely -- I will also note that this contingent grows larger in direct proportion to the amount of slop that is poured into the new pages feed. If we refuse to do anything at all about this issue, even the smallest token gesture, it is not going to result in a bright new sunny day for LLM enjoyers. jp×g🗯️ 09:25, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG: Thanks for letting me know how you feel and I regret that my comments annoyed you. My criticism expressed in the stone-comment was not directed at you as a person but at "the policy in its current formulation". I appreciate all the effort you have poured into the project of addressing inappropriate LLM uses. The change I proposed to the current formulation was meant as a contribution to this project. My impression is that the two of us agree that LLMs are both useful and dangerous and that a middle way is required to harness their potential while minimizing their downsides. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations, Phlsph7! The article you nominated, Philosophy, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Congrats Phlsph7! Thanks for everything you do here. Aza24 (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

December songs

story · music

Thank you for a splendid general article! I'm sorry that I missed the FAC, - I had planned to come, but travelled too much, late even for congratulations ;) - Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary, and Aaron Copland died OTD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Power: A New Social Analysis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Of the universe -- Of the universe (talk

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

) 11:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Communication Barn-Statue?
	Yeah, I had a lot of confusion when doing this. But seriously, thank you for everything communication. One more question, when is this turning blue? The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1(The Garage) 01:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@The Corvette ZR1: Thanks for this unique barn-something! I don't have any immediate plans to address that red link. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For continuously improving important and highly viewed articles to GA and FA status. Shapeyness (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Phlsph7! Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciating my efforts. Do you think that a concise explanation of the topic (the beginning of communication) might be available in another already existing section as a short part of it (e.g., in “Communication Studies”)? Best regards, Ana Padovana (talk) 13:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ana Padovana and thanks for your effort at improving this article and your detailed research. The section "Communication studies" is supposed to give a concise overview of the most important developments and topics in this field. I don't think that the theories covered in your addition are widely discussed in communication studies. The main article Communication studies has some more space for details. You could try adding one or two sentences to that article if the sources on communication studies support it.

As a side note: I saw that you added similar sections to other articles on broad topics. There is a chance that they have similar problems. Many of your contributions cover shared intentionality and mention Michael Tomasello. If you have a conflict of interest, for example, because you are personally associated with some of the authors and/or publications, then you have to declare that. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I found a way to mention communication between mother and fetus in one sentence. This is not a major topic relative to communication in general so I don't think a detailed discussion is justified. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for mentioning the topic of "beginning of communication" in the article. The origin of any appearance in Nature is a crucial part of its essence. To my mind, ‘refining the theoretical understanding of communication’ is impossible without studying its beginning. While one sentence is better than zero, the sentence "Some basic forms of communication happen even before birth between mother and embryo and include information about nutrition and emotions" may create many critical comments. For example, what does this sentence mean by the definition of ‘basic forms of communication’ between two organisms that cannot interact through the sensory system: one of them is in a womb and does not possess abstract thinking to interact through a coding system being at the reflexes stage of development? This is precisely the central point of the problem.

‘Communication studies covers a wide area overlapping with many other disciplines, such as biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, linguistics, media studies, and journalism.’(the section ‘Communication studies’ of the article) Therefore human in se, in the meaning of "homo sapiens," plays an essential role in communication studies; communication and cognition are closely related topics (they only exist in co-existence). Even though it may seem that the origins of communication is a novel topic for communication studies, it has been intensively discussed in the context of the topic of cognition since the XIX century. Famous thinkers Kant, children development psychologists Piaget and Vygotsky, and modern scientists such as cognitive psychologist Anne Treisman contributed to this knowledge.

The significance of knowledge about the beginning of communication cannot be overestimated since it can show new research directions for developing the notion of communication.

I do not think that one or two questions may explain this broad issue.

I am really confused by your question about a conflict of interest. No, I'm not paid to edit Wiki. However, I like this topic of beginning cognition and know some scientists working in this area. Some of them, I do not like. I sympathize with Tomasello's ideas and could call myself his follower, although I do not know him personally. Whether or not it means that I am personally associated with these scientists? Thank you for posing the question. Thank you for the kind and prompt response! Best regards, Ana Padovana (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The article discusses various forms of communication, including communication between plants, between cells, and between non-living entities. Given this background, I don't think that communication between mother and fetus is a particularly problematic phenomenon. If the sentence can be formulated in a way that avoids the problem you see then we could consider it.

I suggest that you read

WP:COI. It is not restricted to paid editing. If you are merely a fan of Tomasello or another author you cite but have no contact with them then you don't need to worry about conflict of interest. If you are personally associated with them or if some of the papers you cite are your own or from a research group you are associated with then it could be conflict of interest. Phlsph7 (talk

) 17:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind proposal! I would suggest this (additionally to your sentence) if you prefer a short form:

Some basic forms of communication happen even before birth between mother and embryo and include information about nutrition and emotions.[1]^[2] Michael Tomasello developed the psychological construct of Shared intentionality to account for unaware processes during ecological learning.

Here is just one more comment supporting Michael Tomasello. In 2022, he received the David Rumelhart Prize in the Cognitive Science Society as an award for his insights into cognition evolution and, specifically, the knowledge development about the contribution of shared intentionality to cognition and social reality formation. Moreover, he was awarded: Jean Nicod Prize, Paris, 2006; Mind and Brain Prize, University of Torino, 2007; Hegel Prize, Stuttgart, 2009; Oswald Külpe Prize, University of Würzburg, 2009; Max Planck Research Prize, 2010; Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award, American Psychological Association, 2015 and many others. Best regards, Ana Padovana (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm sorry if I'm a bit slow, but I don't understand why it is necessary to present this example in the light of Tomasello's novel theory of shared intentionality. I checked the two sources of the example and they mention neither Tomasello nor shared intentionality.

The main point of this subsection is to explain non-verbal communication. Communication between mother and embryo is merely used as an example. If this example is as problematic as you say and can only be discussed through the lens of a novel theory that introduces unexplained concepts to the reader then it may be better to remove the example. Phlsph7 (talk) 16:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

On 8 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Existence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it is controversial whether there are things that do not exist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Existence. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Existence), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

WaggersTALK 00:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 18,310 views (762.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

In my work simply transmitting data has often not resulted in comprehension by the listener/reader. I would support my suggested change by using the Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication (amongst other texts) which emphasises interaction rather than transmission. (see https://www-oxfordreference-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/display/10.1093/acref/9780198841838.001.0001/acref-9780198841838-e-413?rskey=h9ldXT&result=1)

Would you support this addition as I think it would help set the scene for the rest of the article especially for those new to the subject ??

Happy to hear your views. johnmark†:Talk(talk to me) 11:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

MOS:LEADCLUTTER) rather explaining it later. A shorter alternative would be "exchange of information". However, this is also not ideal, since it implies that information goes back and forth, which is not always the case. The precise definition is a difficult and controversial subject, as discussed in the section Communication#Definitions. Phlsph7 (talk

) 13:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So impressed by your writing ability. Communication is just one such example. It is a wonderful world (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@It is a wonderful world: Thanks a lot for the feedback! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you constructively edit again, you may be given a barnstar without further warning. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Just kidding :) You are an awesome editor. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@CactiStaccingCrane: Thanks, that's an interesting warning template! I apologize to all the harmed parties for depriving them of the opportunity to be the first to make the constructive edits in question. :) Phlsph7 (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		This may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work. For your AI, referencing, readability and other tools. On a day last December, my jaw dropped as I went through the tools. Thank you!

Tom B (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Tom B: Thank you for the appreciation! Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello there. I have no particular justification for assuming you either have the time or the inclination for this particular article—I suspect it's not squarely in your wheelhouse—but I've been working on Zhuangzi (book), and my goal is to get it to FA status. I would like to actively emulate your work in its usefulness, elegance, and concision—I've just acquired your Flesch scoring script, as like many others I struggle to tune sentences for maximum ease and clarity, so I really should've found this before. It will be a godsend.
I would like to keep the article under 5000 words, for no other reason than simply bluntly preventing the worst excesses. The largest omission to my eyes is a proper discussion of historical commentaries—which I don't expect any particular expertise in from most anyone on English Wikipedia, of course—but lacking further expertise it is a bit overwhelming looking down the barrel of such an important work in the history of philosophy, and trying to weigh all its different themes as have been analyzed throughout history.
In any case, thank you in advance for any input you may or may not have, and thank you for the excellent work and the inspiration. Cheers! Remsense留 10:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Remsense, thanks for the feedback and I'm happy to hear that the readability script is helpful! Your project is interesting and keeping the article below 5000 words sounds like a good idea. I've added a few observations below but keep in mind that while I have some rough ideas about Taoism, I know very little about this book itself.

• I agree that having more on historical commentaries would be a good idea. You might find [2] helpful and some information can be found at [3].
• It might also be good to discuss relativism in the themes-section. [4] has some information on this.
• Have you considered giving more space in the themes section to wu wei and to how the book responds to other currents in Chinese philosophy, such as Mohism?
• The Zhuangzi (Chinese: 莊子, historically romanized Chuang Tzŭ) is a work of Chinese literature written during the late Warring States period (476–221 BC), named for its traditional author "Master Zhuang". You could consider turning the first into the second sentence since the more import fact seems to be that it is a foundational texts of Taoism. Something along the lines "The Zhuangzi is one of the foundational texts of Taoism. It was written during...". Another thought would be to be to move the expression in the parenthesis to the body of the article (see
  MOS:LEADCLUTTER
  ).
• Stein and Pelliot ultimately took most of manuscripts back to Europe add "the" before "manuscripts"
• The Zhuangzi is most influential work of pure literature written add "the" before "most"
• Zhuangzi did not entirely abandon language and reason, but "only wished to point out that over-dependence on them could limit the flexibility of thought" This formulation be read as implying that the quote is from Zhuangzi.

Phlsph7 (talk) 13:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think I will start by splitting part of the "Themes" section off into a "Comparison" section. Cheers! Remsense留 13:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you today for Communication, introduced: "Communication is a wide topic and includes diverse phenomena pertaining not only to humans but also to animals, plants, and computers. The article may interest you if you have ever wondered about some of the following questions: "Is communication more than the transmission of information?", "How can intrapersonal communication be external?", "Are there important differences between human and animal communication?", "How do plants communicate despite their limited bodily movement?", "Why is communication between members of the same species more common than between members of different species?", and "Why did the invention of the printing press matter in the history of communication?"."!

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

The image of my story yesterday would make a good illustration for communication, while today's story is a nod to my mother on her birthday ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to see the archiving! If you open a PR or new FAC in the future, feel free to ping me and I'd like to review it further if I have the time. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thanks for the offer! It seems that, despite the supports, it was not quite enough. I've already listed the article with the guild of copy editors. I hope to have another nomination once the prose and comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)